The Oregon Supreme Court announced its decision in Boldt and Boldt. I’m currently reading it, not that I can specifically offer anything in the way of legal analysis. But the conclusion is stunning from the perspective of individual rights.
We remand the case to the trial court with instructions to resolve the factual issue whether M agrees or objects to the circumcision.
“M” is the 12-year-old boy in the case. His foreskin, his opinion? What an original idea.
Update: Andrew Sullivan reaches the same basic conclusion.